User talk:CorsacFoxWiki

CS1 error on Personal allowance

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Personal allowance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi! Happy to give some input, as you requested on my talk page. Mentors are randomly assigned to new editors as an option for support, along with other resources like Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Overall it looks like you're doing well, making efforts to contribute constructively and collaborate with others, which is nice to see. My main advice is to write shorter edit summaries - they should be brief so that other editors can skim them quickly. See WP:Edit summary, which says: "Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about 'the truth', or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page." For example, I'm looking at this edit that you made:

• Your summary: "Change of "incumbent" to "current" [reverting edit 05:48, 22 July 2026 ~2026-40966-57]; Previous PMs Johnson, Truss & Sunak (initially "current" then changed to "incumbent"), and Starmer ("incumbent" persisting from description of Sunak, which I changed to "current" 15 May 2025) and Burnham (initially) were described as "current"; "incumbent" has negative nuances; "current" is more neutral. See nuance of permanence of "incumbent", a receiver of ecclesiastical benefice with lifelong tenure."
• It's hard to figure out what that means with just a glance, and we don't need to provide complex rationales for simple changes that others are likely to agree with. I would summarize that edit like this: "Updated description of Burnham from "incumbent" to "current" because he assumed office on 20 July"

If you're making small or medium-size edits that are well-supported by citations (not your own original research), you typically don't need to explain a complex rationale in the edit summary, because the citation justifies the change. For example, I'm looking at this edit:

• Your summary: Add reference to Richard H. Richens's 1950s computational semantic network (therefore removed statement that the concept was formed in the early 1960s); M. Ross Quillian was a _computational_ linguist; add references to Quillian's early notational representation (1963), and computer model of semantic memory (1968). Added that semantic networks were used in computer systems at the time.
• Since the specifics of the change are in the change itself, I'd summarize that edit at a higher level, like this: "Add first semantic network from 1956; cite Quillian's 1960s work and correct his field; note use in computer systems"

Couple minor things:

• Self-refuting idea - Can you find a citation for for your addition here? The section already has a tag that says "This section may contain original research", so it's better to improve that aspect than to add to it.
• Exception handling - It's nice to use the "Review your changes" button to check whether the diff will be readable to other editors. In this case, you added an extra newline inside of a citation template, which is no big deal, but it makes the diff a bit more cumbersome to review.

Feel free to let me know if you have any particular questions. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Dreamyshade.

Ah! It certainly is a revelation to hear that short edit summaries are preferred. I had thought giving good explanations of why I make edits would be helpful. So I'll endeavour to keep them short from now on.

On the UK List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom "incumbent" gets change to "current" and back again on a fairly infrequent cycle in a slow motion edit war (AFAIK "incumbent" started being used part way through Sunak's term). I see on UK prime minister it's "incumbent". I think I'll give up on my pedantry against the etymologically sloppy, if it gets changed again.

As for self-refuting idea and a reference for the fallacious refutation of skepticism the only thing I can think of is where I first came across an argument against such refutations in Principia Mathematica, Russell & Whitehead, Chapter II, The Theory of Logical Types, I. The Vicious Circle Principle. My problem with Russell & Whitehead is they using the erroneous anti-skeptic as an example for a more complicated, stronger (slightly too strong IMO), and more general argument about avoiding vicious-circles ("Whatever involves all of a collection must not be one of the collection") when they say, "Similarly, the imaginary sceptic, who asserts that he knows nothing, and is refuted by being asked if he knows that he knows nothing, has asserted nonsense, and has been fallaciously refuted by an argument which involves a vicious-circle fallacy." Then we'd have to get into the restriction on vicious-circles (and the debates around that). Then there is the subtle difference between asserting you know nothing, and asserting you don't believe anything (I didn't want to get into knowing nothing because its more difficult to justify philosophically). So sticking with not believing anything, a logician who does not believe anything, could explore theoretically what if someone believed such-and-such then what would be the consequences? Thus becoming knowledgeable about various _theories_ System F, Martin-Löf type theory, etc... but without committing to believe any of them. To use a non mathematical simile an agnostic might learn about various religions but not believe any of them. On reflection, I would not feel comfortable directing the reader to the Russell & Whitehead reference where I find the logic makes me feel slightly queasy. It might waste the reader's time, or exhausts his potential understanding by making what is now a simple explanation, more complicated. I'll try to find a reference That I'm happy with. Though it's obvious, more obvious than 1 + 1 = 2 (I remember a Jeff Paris (mathematician) lecture proving 1 + 1 = 2 in several steps from Peano's axioms). From the non-believing skeptics empty set of axioms {} we can straightaway see there are no symbols or rules that can be applied to them (it cannot argue for or against itself), and the empty theory is very boring and sterile, having no power to prove anything, unlike the Peano axioms and other logics, which are rabbit holes that lead to some very far-out places.

When previewing my edits I had noticed how the diff tool was not very good at matching up whole sections of similar text. I'll try to resist inserting new-lines. I've deleted the offending newline and now comparing current with one-before-the-previous shows the change clearly. In this particular case, (between < ref > and </ ref > tags of a citation where newline should not be significant for layout) an automated solution would be for the diff tool to recognize the start and end tags, and match any sequence of whitespace (spaces, tabs, new-lines) with any other sequence of whitespace between the tags. Or perhaps, more simply, automatically replacing each sequence of whitespace between < ref > and </ ref > tags with a single space when saving. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtfulness! I certainly don't want to discourage explaining the rationale for your edits - consider writing a brief message in the edit summary and a longer message on the talk page, if needed. In general, often it's easier to start with an idea, look for a citation, and summarize the citation in the article, rather than starting with an idea, writing it down for an article, and trying to find a citation for it. There are many interesting and true things that are quite hard to find secondary sources for. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Dreamyshade, Thank you for taking the time to discuss my editing, and initiate some self-reflection on my part (an illuminating process). You've taught me more of what is expected on Wikipedia. As a result I have reassessed my role here in the beautiful, yet maddening, collective endeavour of making Wikipedia better. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)